Is it possible to use self as a reference in the __init__ method when the object is not instantiated yet?
What I'm trying to do is :
class MyClass(models.Model)
__init__(self):
some_attributes = AnotherClass.objects.filter(foreignkey=self)
The thing is that as the instance of MyClass is not registered in db yet, I have an exception like "MyClass has not attribute id"
I tried to add
if self.pk:
but it doesn't work. Is there a method like
if self.is_saved_in_db():
#some code
or do I have to created this one ?
EDIT
To be more specific, I'll give an example. I have a generic class which I try to hydrate with attributes from another Model.
class MyClass(models.Model)
_init__(self):
self.hydrate()
def hydrate(self):
# Retrieving the related objects
attributes = Information.objects.filter(...)
for attr in attributes:
attribute_id = attr.name.lower().replace(" ","_")
setattr(self,attribute_id,attr)
By doing so, I can access to attributes with MyClass.my_attribute.
For a small example, if we replace MyClass by Recipe and Information with Ingredients I can do :
pasta_recipe.pasta
pasta_recipie.tomato
pasta_recipie.onions
It's a simple parsing from a foreign_key to an attribute
By writing it, I realise that it's a bit useless because I can directly use ForeignKey relationships. I think I'll do that but for my own culture, is it possible do the filter with self as attribute before database saving ?
Thanks!
This is a very strange thing to do. I strongly recommend you do not try to do it.
(That said, the self.pk check is the correct one: you need to provide more details than "it doesn't work".)
Related
Answer
As Sergey pointed out, class Model(**kwargs) is invalid, and is a typo in Django documentation.
The "class" part comes from the markup they used when they wrote it.
So, what they actually meant in the Django documentation is:
Creating objects
To create a new instance of a model, just instantiate it like any
other Python class:
Model(**kwargs)
The keyword arguments are simply the names of the fields you’ve
defined on your model. Note that instantiating a model in no way
touches your database; for that, you need to save().
Original question
I found the following while reading the Django Docs about Model instances:
Creating objects
To create a new instance of a model, just instantiate it like any
other Python class:
class Model(**kwargs)
The keyword arguments are simply the names of the fields you’ve
defined on your model. Note that instantiating a model in no way
touches your database; for that, you need to save().
What is the difference between these two codes?
class Model(**kwargs)
new_model = Model(**kwargs)
I know the second one creates a new instance of the class Model, with kwargs.
Is the first one different from it? To me, it seems like it rather redefines the Model class.
class Model(**kwargs) is not a valid Python syntax, the latter would look like
class Model(SomeBaseClass):
pass
Judging by the formatting (the line looks like a subheading), this must be a mistake in the Django documentation.
If you look at the Sphinx source of the page, you'll see that the "class" thing is actually a part of Sphinx markup. What they meant is
To create a new instance of a model, just instantiate it like any
other Python class:
Model(**kwargs)
The keyword arguments are simply the names of the fields you've
defined on your model.
The first line defines a class.
The second line defines an instance of a class.
I want to have a base class called MBUser that has some predefined properties, ones that I don't want to be changed. If the client wants to add properties to MBUser, it is advised that MBUser be subclassed, and any additional properties be put in there.
The API code won't know if the client actually subclasses MBUser or not, but it shouldn't matter. The thinking went that we could just get MBUser by id. So I expected this to work:
def test_CreateNSUser_FetchMBUser(self):
from nsuser import NSUser
id = create_unique_id()
user = NSUser(id = id)
user.put()
# changing MBUser.get.. to NSUser.get makes this test succeed
get_user = MBUser.get_by_id(id)
self.assertIsNotNone(get_user)
Here NSUser is a subclass of MBUser. The test fails.
Why can't I do this?
What's a work around?
Models are defined by their "kind", and a subclass is a different kind, even if it seems the same.
The point of subclassing is not to share values, but to share the "schema" you've created for a given "kind".
A kind map is created on base class ndb.Model (it seems like you're using ndb since you mentioned get_by_id) and each kind is looked up when you do queries like this.
For subclasses, the kind is just defined as the class name:
#classmethod
def _get_kind(cls):
return cls.__name__
I just discovered GAE has a solution for this. It's called the PolyModel:
https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/ndb/polymodelclass
i came with new django problem. The situtaion: i have a model class UploadItemModel, i subcallss it to create uploadable items, like videos, audio files ...
class UploadItem(UserEntryModel):
category = 'abstract item'
file = models.FileField(upload_to=get_upload_directory)
i subclass it like this:
class Video(UploadItem):
category = 'video'
I need to access category attributes from a custom tag. The problem si that i am getting category='abstract item' even if the class is actually Video.
Any clue?
EDIT: I need to use hierarchy because i have several types of item that user can uplaod(Video, Audio files, PDF text). I need to create a class for each type, but there are lot of things in common between those classes(eg forms).
Any clue?
Yes. AFAIK it doesn't work the way you're hoping. Django Models aren't trivially Python classes. They're more like metaclasses which create instances of a kind of "hidden" class definition. Yes, the expected model class exists, but it isn't quite what you think it is. For one thing, the class you use was built for you from your class definition. That's why some static features of Python classes don't work as you'd expect in Django models.
You can't really make use of class-level items like this.
You might want to create an actual field with a default value or something similar.
class UploadItem(UserEntryModel):
category = models.CharFIeld( default='abstract item' )
file = models.FileField(upload_to=get_upload_directory)
Even after the comments being added to the question, I'm still unclear on why this is being done. There do not seem to be any structural or behavioral differences. These all seem like a single class of objects. Subclasses don't seem to define anything new.
Options.
Simply use the class name instead of this "category" item at the class level. Make the class names good enough that you don't need this "category" item.
Use a property
class UploadItem(UserEntryModel):
file = models.FileField(upload_to=get_upload_directory)
#property
def category( self ):
return self.__class__.__name__
You will need to create an additional field that will be a descriptor for that type.
There is a good tutorial here explaining how to use inheritance in Django models
Can you try overriding the __init__ method of the class to assign a category to each instance? For e.g.
class Video(UploadItem):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(Video, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.category = 'video'
I want to make attributes of GAE Model properties. The reason is for cases like to turn the value into uppercase before storing it. For a plain Python class, I would do something like:
Foo(db.Model):
def get_attr(self):
return self.something
def set_attr(self, value):
self.something = value.upper() if value != None else None
attr = property(get_attr, set_attr)
However, GAE Datastore have their own concept of Property class, I looked into the documentation and it seems that I could override get_value_for_datastore(model_instance) to achieve my goal. Nevertheless, I don't know what model_instance is and how to extract the corresponding field from it.
Is overriding GAE Property classes the right way to provides getter/setter-like functionality? If so, how to do it?
Added:
One potential issue of overriding get_value_for_datastore that I think of is it might not get called before the object was put into datastore. Hence getting the attribute before storing the object would yield an incorrect value.
Subclassing GAE's Property class is especially helpful if you want more than one "field" with similar behavior, in one or more models. Don't worry, get_value_for_datastore and make_value_from_datastore are going to get called, on any store and fetch respectively -- so if you need to do anything fancy (including but not limited to uppercasing a string, which isn't actually all that fancy;-), overriding these methods in your subclass is just fine.
Edit: let's see some example code (net of imports and main):
class MyStringProperty(db.StringProperty):
def get_value_for_datastore(self, model_instance):
vv = db.StringProperty.get_value_for_datastore(self, model_instance)
return vv.upper()
class MyModel(db.Model):
foo = MyStringProperty()
class MainHandler(webapp.RequestHandler):
def get(self):
my = MyModel(foo='Hello World')
k = my.put()
mm = MyModel.get(k)
s = mm.foo
self.response.out.write('The secret word is: %r' % s)
This shows you the string's been uppercased in the datastore -- but if you change the get call to a simple mm = my you'll see the in-memory instance wasn't affected.
But, a db.Property instance itself is a descriptor -- wrapping it into a built-in property (a completely different descriptor) will not work well with the datastore (for example, you can't write GQL queries based on field names that aren't really instances of db.Property but instances of property -- those fields are not in the datastore!).
So if you want to work with both the datastore and for instances of Model that have never actually been to the datastore and back, you'll have to choose two names for what's logically "the same" field -- one is the name of the attribute you'll use on in-memory model instances, and that one can be a built-in property; the other one is the name of the attribute that ends up in the datastore, and that one needs to be an instance of a db.Property subclass and it's this second name that you'll need to use in queries. Of course the methods underlying the first name need to read and write the second name, but you can't just "hide" the latter because that's the name that's going to be in the datastore, and so that's the name that will make sense to queries!
What you want is a DerivedProperty. The procedure for writing one is outlined in that post - it's similar to what Alex describes, but by overriding get instead of get_value_for_datastore, you avoid issues with needing to write to the datastore to update it. My aetycoon library has it and other useful properties included.
In Django, when you have a parent class and multiple child classes that inherit from it you would normally access a child through parentclass.childclass1_set or parentclass.childclass2_set, but what if I don't know the name of the specific child class I want?
Is there a way to get the related objects in the parent->child direction without knowing the child class name?
(Update: For Django 1.2 and newer, which can follow select_related queries across reverse OneToOneField relations (and thus down inheritance hierarchies), there's a better technique available which doesn't require the added real_type field on the parent model. It's available as InheritanceManager in the django-model-utils project.)
The usual way to do this is to add a ForeignKey to ContentType on the Parent model which stores the content type of the proper "leaf" class. Without this, you may have to do quite a number of queries on child tables to find the instance, depending how large your inheritance tree is. Here's how I did it in one project:
from django.contrib.contenttypes.models import ContentType
from django.db import models
class InheritanceCastModel(models.Model):
"""
An abstract base class that provides a ``real_type`` FK to ContentType.
For use in trees of inherited models, to be able to downcast
parent instances to their child types.
"""
real_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType, editable=False)
def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
if self._state.adding:
self.real_type = self._get_real_type()
super(InheritanceCastModel, self).save(*args, **kwargs)
def _get_real_type(self):
return ContentType.objects.get_for_model(type(self))
def cast(self):
return self.real_type.get_object_for_this_type(pk=self.pk)
class Meta:
abstract = True
This is implemented as an abstract base class to make it reusable; you could also put these methods and the FK directly onto the parent class in your particular inheritance hierarchy.
This solution won't work if you aren't able to modify the parent model. In that case you're pretty much stuck checking all the subclasses manually.
In Python, given a ("new-style") class X, you can get its (direct) subclasses with X.__subclasses__(), which returns a list of class objects. (If you want "further descendants", you'll also have to call __subclasses__ on each of the direct subclasses, etc etc -- if you need help on how to do that effectively in Python, just ask!).
Once you have somehow identified a child class of interest (maybe all of them, if you want instances of all child subclasses, etc), getattr(parentclass,'%s_set' % childclass.__name__) should help (if the child class's name is 'foo', this is just like accessing parentclass.foo_set -- no more, no less). Again, if you need clarification or examples, please ask!
Carl's solution is a good one, here's one way to do it manually if there are multiple related child classes:
def get_children(self):
rel_objs = self._meta.get_all_related_objects()
return [getattr(self, x.get_accessor_name()) for x in rel_objs if x.model != type(self)]
It uses a function out of _meta, which is not guaranteed to be stable as django evolves, but it does the trick and can be used on-the-fly if need be.
It turns out that what I really needed was this:
Model inheritance with content type and inheritance-aware manager
That has worked perfectly for me. Thanks to everyone else, though. I learned a lot just reading your answers!
You can use django-polymorphic for that.
It allows to automatically cast derived classes back to their actual type. It also provides Django admin support, more efficient SQL query handling, and proxy model, inlines and formset support.
The basic principle seems to be reinvented many times (including Wagtail's .specific, or the examples outlined in this post). It takes more effort however, to make sure it doesn't result in an N-query issue, or integrate nicely with the admin, formsets/inlines or third party apps.
Here's my solution, again it uses _meta so isn't guaranteed to be stable.
class Animal(models.model):
name = models.CharField()
number_legs = models.IntegerField()
...
def get_child_animal(self):
child_animal = None
for r in self._meta.get_all_related_objects():
if r.field.name == 'animal_ptr':
child_animal = getattr(self, r.get_accessor_name())
if not child_animal:
raise Exception("No subclass, you shouldn't create Animals directly")
return child_animal
class Dog(Animal):
...
for a in Animal.objects.all():
a.get_child_animal() # returns the dog (or whatever) instance
You can achieve this looking for all the fields in the parent that are an instance of django.db.models.fields.related.RelatedManager. From your example it seems that the child classes you are talking about are not subclasses. Right?
An alternative approach using proxies can be found in this blog post. Like the other solutions, it has its benefits and liabilities, which are very well put in the end of the post.